Overall score
Dubbo
37.8/100
Buderim
61.8/100
Dubbo vs Buderim Suburb Comparison (NSW vs QLD)
Dubbo for investment; Buderim for retirees and families.
See which suburb leads on livability, safety, schools, and lifestyle.
Head to head
Visual comparison
DubboBuderim
Crime rate
Dubbo
153.5 / 1k
Buderim
22.2 / 1k
Nearby amenities
Dubbo
64
Buderim
154
Population
Dubbo
43,516
Buderim
31,430
Metric leadDubbo 2Buderim 91 tiedacross 12 compared metrics
Livability profile
Desirability pillars scored 0–100 vs comparable suburbs
Quick verdicts
Clearer edge on lifestyle fit (score gap ≥ 3)
Audience fit
Who each suburb suits — composite scores out of 100
All metrics
Side-by-side scores for every compared metric.
Full comparison table
Exact figures for every metric — winner highlighted in bold.
| Category | Dubbo | Buderim |
|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 37.8/100 | 61.8/100 |
| Housing (desirability) | 57.6/100 | 70.5/100 |
| Crime rate | 153.5 / 1k | 22.2 / 1k |
| Schools & preschools | 2 | 2 |
| Weather (desirability) | 13.4/100 | 31.2/100 |
| Parks & reserves | 58 | 59 |
| Public transport stops | 1,884 | 78 |
| Walkability | 32.0/100 | 84.0/100 |
| Nearby amenities | 64 | 154 |
| Planning activity | 394 | — |
| Green cover | 2.1% | 6.1% |
| Population | 43,516 | 31,430 |
| SEIFA (IRSAD decile) | 4/10 | 8/10 |
Comparison summary
Dubbo (NSW) is a regional larger suburb that feels self-contained without feeling remote, while Buderim (QLD) is an energetic metro larger suburb where cafés and local life overlap. Dubbo sits more regionally self-contained, whereas Buderim is in a middle-ring position.
On the data, Dubbo is stronger for housing affordability, public transport access, and a larger local community; Buderim answers with a quieter safety profile, parks and reserves, and walkability.
On balance, retirees, families, value-focused buyers, and households prioritising schools are more likely to prefer Buderim, while Dubbo remains a solid alternative depending on what matters most day to day.
Generated from the official metrics on this page. It can omit nuance or contain errors — check the tables and source notes before relying on it.